Unmasking The Three Rwandan Musketeers

By Herbert Karangwa

We all know the three fellows that once served in government and are now in self-imposed exile. These fellows have made it their preoccupation to throw tantrums at the leadership of this country and in particular President Paul Kagame.

As a matter of fact when you read what they churn out, the conclusion is one—personal attacks directed at the name of the President as opposed to any ideological difference or a substantive alternative political program.

To sum up their accusations, they chorus a lack of democracy and absence of human rights. In other words they say the President is a dictator and intolerant.

Hiding under the cover of ‘lack of democracy or human right’ is the simplest path for any disgruntled politician. The two accusations are a convenient and easy narrative that captures the attention of the usually ill-informed western world.

It even gets more complicated for the Rwandan case. Usually African governments are accused of corruption and incompetence in delivery of services to the people. Rwanda is the opposite. Therefore the only avenue that remains for the so-called opposition is to manufacture a narrative along the lines of freedoms.

But there’s a serious contradiction here. How does a dictator or enemy of freedoms be the same person championing free education for children, universal access to health care, universal access to ICTs, initiate programs that uplift millions from poverty – and above all agrees to the principle of power sharing in the constitution? Which dictator in this world has ever allowed sharing power?

The second accusation is not far from the above. They say President Kagame is intolerant and hates advice. But going by the revelations of these three characters and looking at their track record, then the only thing you conclude of what they want us to believe.

One has openly confessed that he opposed the war in Congo in 1998 when he was the army Chief of Staff. Never mind that despite his alleged ‘opposition’ the man he describes as ‘cruel’, or a person who doesn’t take in ‘advice’ awarded him with a promotion not only in Army ranks but made him the custodian of state secrets.

Moving beyond these promotions, you would wonder what sort of General opposes his CIC’s orders? Doesn’t that speak volumes about the character and formation of such a General? The US former General in Iraq who was fired for speaking ill about his CIC offers good lessons on the doctrine that defines the Army.

The other absconded from his duties as a Principle Private Secretary to the President. He decided to go on holiday in South Africa. When his wallet run dry he pleaded to return. The man he describes as ‘inhumane’ was kind enough to bring this prodigal son on board reinstated him in the same position. I have never seen any AWOL who is lucky enough to find his position intact even after a year of absconding. Here, I will blame the principle for being too kind.

The third served as a Secretary General of the ruling party. He claims to have openly opposed many ‘intolerant’ policies of his party chairman, when he served in this position. But despite his alleged ‘opposition,’ his party chairman that he describes as “a person who hates advice” was kind enough to give him the Chief advisor of his office by appointing him Director of Cabinet.

Which ‘intolerant’ creature in this world would want a person who has opposed his policies to become his right hand blue-eyed lieutenant?

Therefore, going by the record of what these individuals have been saying and particularly the attempt to paint themselves as clean fellows who are victims of their long-held principles, the conclusion you draw is a lack of honesty.

They contradict themselves and only serve to vindicate the President because a person who is “intolerant or hates advice” cannot be the same person who has the heart to promote and retain individuals with a dissenting view on his ideas.

To shout and shout– day-in-day out ‘Paul Kagame,’ like we saw in the infamous BBC documentary is not what will win the hearts and minds of Rwandans.

Unlike 20 years ago, the Rwandans of today have tasted the fruits of good governance.  The ones of today have a clear understanding of what empty politicking breeds. You either have a clear transformational agenda or you simply become irrelevant.